Trump's Actions: International Law Violation?

There are several instances of Donald Trump's actions as US President being called into question with regards to international law. One of the most notable instances was the targeted killing of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani, which was justified by the Trump administration as a defensive strike aimed at deterring future attacks on American diplomats and service members. However, this move was criticised by the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, Agnes Callamard, who stated that such reasoning does not hold up under international law, as deadly force can only be justified if it is necessary to protect against an imminent threat to life.

Another instance of Trump's actions being called into question with regards to international law was his withdrawal of the US from the 2015 Paris climate accords. This move was seen as an attack on international environmental law, with a second withdrawal from the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change also being considered.

Trump's imposition of tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada was also criticised as a violation of international trade law, with the World Trade Organization ruling that the tariffs were in violation of WTO laws. Trump's response to this ruling was to block the appointment of new judges, rendering the organisation's binding dispute-settlement body impotent.

Other actions taken by Trump that were seen as breaking international law include his withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, his undermining of American and Western intelligence by pulling out of the Open Skies Treaty, his threats to leave NATO, and his discriminatory policies towards migrants and LGBTQ+ individuals, which were seen as violations of international human rights law.

Trump's drone strike on Iranian general Qasem Soleimani

On January 3, 2020, a US drone strike near Baghdad International Airport killed Qasem Soleimani, the leader of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), along with nine other people. The Trump administration initially justified the strike as an effort to deter imminent attacks on US embassies and personnel, but later insisted that Iran's actions in the months leading up to the strike triggered the US's right to self-defense. The US also claimed the authority to carry out the strike based on the president's inherent constitutional powers and the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq.

The strike was met with swift and harsh condemnation, most notably from Iraq, which said the attacks had violated its sovereignty. The UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, Agnes Callamard, also weighed in, slamming the Pentagon for violating international law. She asserted that the US had not provided sufficient evidence of an imminent threat to life to justify the attack and that the US's reasoning did not hold up under international law.

The legality of the strike under international law turns on the scope of the right to self-defense provided by international law. Article 51 of the UN Charter allows states to exercise "the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." Under customary international law, imminent self-defense prior to an attack is widely recognized as permissible when the threat is "instant, overwhelming and leaving no choice and means, and leaves no moment for deliberation." The US has previously articulated a more expansive view of imminence.

The strike also raises questions about whether the US violated its legal duty to "refrain... from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence" of Iraq. The government of Iraq did not indicate that it had given consent to the strike, instead swiftly denouncing it as a violation of international law.

The strike prompted a strong reaction in Iraq. On January 5, 2020, two days after the strike, the Iraqi parliament voted to expel US troops from its territory. Iran also responded to the strike with several significant actions, including announcing that it would abandon the limitations on its production of nuclear fuel contained in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

Trump's withdrawal from the Paris climate accords

On June 1, 2017, former US President Donald Trump announced that the United States would cease all participation in the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change mitigation, contending that the agreement would "undermine" the U.S. economy and put the U.S. "at a permanent disadvantage". The Paris Agreement is an addition to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), initially agreed to by all 195 countries present at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in December of that year.

Trump's decision to withdraw the U.S. was backed by many Republicans but was strongly opposed by Democrats. Trump's decision to withdraw was strongly criticized in the U.S. and abroad by environmentalists, religious organizations, business leaders, and scientists. A majority of Americans opposed withdrawal. The Paris Agreement was broadly popular among Americans, with a national poll by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs finding that 71% of American adults favored U.S. participation in the Paris Agreement.

Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement impacted other countries by reducing its financial aid to the Green Climate Fund. The termination of the $3 billion U.S. funding ultimately impacted climate change research and decreased society's chance of reaching the Paris Agreement goals. Trump's decision also affected the carbon emission space as well as the carbon price. The U.S.'s withdrawal also meant that the spot to take over the global climate regime was obtainable for China and the EU.

In accordance with Article 28 of the Paris Agreement, a country cannot give notice of withdrawal from the agreement within the first three years of its start date in the relevant country, which was on November 4, 2016, in the case of the United States. The White House later clarified that the U.S. would abide by the four-year exit process. On November 4, 2019, the administration gave a formal notice of intention to withdraw, which takes 12 months to take effect. Until the withdrawal took effect, the United States was obligated to maintain its commitments under the Agreement, such as the requirement to continue reporting its emissions to the United Nations. The withdrawal took effect on November 4, 2020, one day after the 2020 U.S. presidential election.

Following the 2020 presidential election, President-elect Joe Biden vowed to rejoin the Paris Agreement on his first day in office. On January 20, 2021, shortly after his inauguration, Biden signed an executive order to rejoin the agreement. The United States formally rejoined the Paris Agreement on February 19, 2021, 107 days after the withdrawal took effect.

Trump's tariffs on China

In 2018, Donald Trump imposed tariffs on China, which had a negative impact on the US economy. The tariffs were as high as 60% on some goods, such as solar panels, steel and aluminium. This move was part of Trump's "America First" policy, which pursued nationalist foreign policy objectives and prioritised bilateral relations over multinational agreements.

The tariffs on China were met with retaliation from China, which imposed tariffs on US goods in return. This resulted in a trade war between the two countries, which disrupted global trade and had negative consequences for the US economy and consumers. The tariffs also led to an increase in imports to the US from other countries, such as Vietnam, as manufacturers rerouted goods to circumvent the tariffs.

The impact of the tariffs on China was not limited to economics. Some commentators suggested that the tariffs could help to democratise China by forcing the country to nurture its middle class. However, others argued that Trump's belligerent trade policies towards China undermined the very underpinnings of international alliance and cooperation.

Despite the negative consequences of the tariffs, Trump remained committed to his policy. In 2025, during his second term as president, Trump's aides were exploring "universal" tariff plans that would be applied to every country but would only cover critical imports. This represented a shift from his initial plans to impose tariffs on all imports, which were recognised as potentially politically unpopular and disruptive.

Overall, Trump's tariffs on China had far-reaching impacts, affecting not only the economic relationship between the two countries but also the global trading system and the political dynamics within China.

Trump's travel ban on people from African and Muslim-majority countries

On January 27, 2017, President Trump signed an executive order banning travel to the United States for 90 days from seven predominantly Muslim countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The order also suspended the resettlement of all Syrian refugees. The ban sparked protests across the country, with immigrant rights, refugee resettlement, and civil liberties organizations undertaking several legal challenges to the order on the grounds that it constituted religious discrimination.

The list of countries affected by the ban later expanded to include Venezuela (limited to government officials) and North Korea. In 2020, the Trump administration expanded visa restrictions to six more countries: Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Myanmar, Nigeria, Sudan, and Tanzania, citing screening and national security concerns.

Trump's travel ban was deemed cruel and inhumane, with over 40,000 people being refused visas as a result. The ban also disproportionately affected students and faculty members of higher education institutions.

The Supreme Court upheld most provisions of a third version of the ban, and Trump has pledged to revive and expand it during his second term.

Trump's threat to target Iranian cultural sites

On January 4, 2020, US President Donald Trump tweeted that if Iran retaliated against the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, the US would target 52 sites in Iran, including some that are "very important to Iran and Iranian culture". Trump renewed this threat the following day, stating:

> They're allowed to kill our people... and we're not allowed to touch their cultural sites? It doesn't work that way.

The threat was widely condemned as a promise of a war crime by the international community, American politicians, and Iranian officials, who compared Trump to Genghis Khan, Adolf Hitler, and the Islamic State. Under the 1954 Hague Convention, targeting cultural sites is considered a war crime.

In response to Trump's threat, UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said that cultural sites were protected by international law and that Britain expected this to be respected. The director-general of UNESCO, Audrey Azoulay, pointed out that both Iran and the US are signatories to the 1972 convention to protect the world's cultural and natural heritage.

On January 7, Trump backed away from his threat, saying:

> I like to obey the law... Think of it. They kill our people. They blow up our people. And then we have to be very gentle with their cultural institutions. But I'm OK with it. It's OK with me.

Frequently asked questions